![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Should we throw in the Drago-Wayland equation for the enthalpy change in Lewis acid-base reaction or should it only go to Lewis acid's own page? I don't know any more about it than what I just googled up. It seems to be fairly modern. Cubbi 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've searched google, my books, historical books, and even ones with in-depth information about Lux-Flood, and almost zero is known about them. Any chance someone would want to mount an original research project if they live in germany?
ā„ā„ ĪĆĪ ŠSĪRĪĪ ā¬ ā„ā„
slurp me!
23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure "Acid-base reaction" would be the right name for this. The content, as it is right now, describes empirical and theoretical answers to "what is an acid" and "what is a base" with examples of how some reactions may be described with those answers. FWIW, check out the names of this article in other languages - it is "Theories of Acidity and Basicity" in SR and SU, "Concepts of Acids and Bases" in DE, and "Acid-Base Reactions" in IT and EL. I am not sure what's better for English as I've never read a Chemistry textbook in EnglishĀ :) Cubbi 21:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I moved this page from Acid-base reaction theories as requested, and corrected many resulting double redirects. Anthony Appleyard 09:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a horrendous mix of hydronium/oxonium, etc. in the article. I think at the beginning should be a brief primer on the ion species present in water with trace elements (H2O, OH-, H3O+ [since H+ is not stable]). Here one can briefly give the alternate names of hydronium, hydroxonium, and oxonium for H3O. Thereafter only one of the names should probably be used. Either the common hydronium name, or the most explicit hydroxonium. Comments? Volunteers? -- Belg4mit 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, some of the theories also actually defined the molecules involved in their own definitions of the reaction, hence why i used the term "oxonium" alongside "as defined at the time of the discovery", but i suppose there would be no harm in further explaining the differences between these and Hydronium ions.
ā„ā„ ĪĆĪ ŠSĪRĪĪ ā¬ ā„ā„
slurp me!
06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Onium ion: A positively charged hypervalent ion of the nonmetallic elements. Examples are the methonium ion CH5+, the hydrogenonium ion H3+ and the hydronium ion H3O+. Other examples are the oxonium, sulfonium, nitronium, diazonium, phosphonium, and halonium ions. Onium ions are not limited to monopositive ions; multiply-charged onium ions exist such as the gitonic (proximal) oxonium dication H4O2+ and the distonic oxonium dication H2O+-CH2-CH2-OH2+.GB
In my opinion there is absolutely no way the external link "Acid-Base Tutorial" should be there. It is not an Acid Base Tutorial as one expects. Its "major feature" is an applet that has nothing to do with the basics of Acid-base reactions.
Someone who has more involvement with this webpage then me should remove it or relabel it.
Dave3457 (
talk)
00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The naming of this article confuses me. See this redirect. Why does this use a long dash instead of just using the minus sign as a dash as is common? Tyciol ( talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there an article about all that stuff people talk about certain foods being acidic or basic depending on their nutrients or effect on the body? Like usually they say meat is acidic and that lemon juice, despite having acids, is basic due to effect on the body. I don't really understand it but an article exploring this recurring idea would be valid to link to. Tyciol ( talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the article: "he was not aware of the true composition of the hydrohalic acids (HF, HCl, HBr (hydrogen fluroide), and HI) (hydrogen iodide)". As far as I can see, the 'fluroide' mentioned is the result of a simple spelling error (it should be fluoride) and the parenthesis is misplaced, because HF is hydrogen fluoride and HBr is hydrogen bromide. The second thing is, why write out hydrogen fluoride in a parenthesis but not also the other two compounds? They all have links and it seems inconsistent. I'd prefer writing out either all compounds, including hydrogen iodide, in the same paranthesis - placed after hydrogen iodide, or none of them. Thirdly, the parenthesis placed just after HI is misplaced and should be put after the current last parenthesis of that sentence. The reason I haven't done these changes myself already is that I haven't edited much and I'm afraid to make a mistake and mess up a link. Knowledgelover121 ( talk) 08:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In highly-polar molecules, such as boron trifluoride (BF3), the most electronegative element pulls electrons towards its own orbitals, providing a more positive charge on the less-electronegative element and a difference in its electronic structure due to the axial or equatorial orbiting positions of its electrons, causing repulsive effects from lone pair ā bonding pair (LpāBp) interactions between bonded atoms in excess of those already provided by bonding pair ā bonding pair (BpāBp) interactions.
Hard to read for a chemistry newcomer. The previous sentence is also heavy. 84.227.242.247 ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I have found no defintions of Ka defined as
Ka= [HA]/([A-][H+])
but have seen multiple references including the first page of this article defining Ka as
Ka = ([A-][H+])/[HA]
This is the definition in common use.
It follows then that the expression in the article should be
[AH]Ka1 = [A-][H+] not [AH]=Ka1[A-][H+]
the subsequent 2 formula are affected.
So there is either an algebra error in this article or am I missing some greater context. DGElder ( talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The wording for the definition of an Arrhenius acid/base is confusing and contradictory. In part it states that: "an Arrhenius acid is a substance that dissociates in water to form hydrogen ions (H+);" "an Arrhenius base is a substance that dissociates in water to form hydroxide (OHā) ions;"
This matches my understanding of an Arrhenius acid/base, as this indicates it must contain a hydrogen which leaves to become "H+" to be an acid, or must contain hydroxide which leaves to become OH- to be a base.
But later on, the page states: "Overall, to qualify as an Arrhenius acid, upon the introduction to water, the chemical must either cause, directly or otherwise: an increase in the aqueous hydronium concentration, or a decrease in the aqueous hydroxide concentration. Conversely, to qualify as an Arrhenius base, upon the introduction to water, the chemical must either cause, directly or otherwise: a decrease in the aqueous hydronium concentration, or an increase in the aqueous hydroxide concentration."
This instead indicates that anything that increase the H3O+ concentration is an Arrhenius acid, and anything which increases the OH- concentration is an Arrhenius base. If you consider something like FeCl3, it doesn't contain a hydrogen atom and can't dissociate to form hydronium ions. So the first definition excludes it. However, if you put it in water, it will cause an increase in the hydronium concentration. So the latter definition indicates it should be an Arrhenius acid.
Likewise, carbonate/bicarbonate, and ammonia are all examples of bases which do not have the required hydroxide, so are excluded by the first definition of a base; but do still increase the hydroxide concentration and would be included by the second definition.
The iron chloride example also causes issues for grouping all Arrhenius acids under Bronsted-Lowry acids.
I assume the first definition is correct, and the latter one is wrong; but I don't have the original source to confirm, and find conflicting information online. Black.jeff ( talk) 01:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a terrorist groups in india 103.55.108.122 ( talk) 18:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Should we throw in the Drago-Wayland equation for the enthalpy change in Lewis acid-base reaction or should it only go to Lewis acid's own page? I don't know any more about it than what I just googled up. It seems to be fairly modern. Cubbi 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've searched google, my books, historical books, and even ones with in-depth information about Lux-Flood, and almost zero is known about them. Any chance someone would want to mount an original research project if they live in germany?
ā„ā„ ĪĆĪ ŠSĪRĪĪ ā¬ ā„ā„
slurp me!
23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure "Acid-base reaction" would be the right name for this. The content, as it is right now, describes empirical and theoretical answers to "what is an acid" and "what is a base" with examples of how some reactions may be described with those answers. FWIW, check out the names of this article in other languages - it is "Theories of Acidity and Basicity" in SR and SU, "Concepts of Acids and Bases" in DE, and "Acid-Base Reactions" in IT and EL. I am not sure what's better for English as I've never read a Chemistry textbook in EnglishĀ :) Cubbi 21:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I moved this page from Acid-base reaction theories as requested, and corrected many resulting double redirects. Anthony Appleyard 09:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a horrendous mix of hydronium/oxonium, etc. in the article. I think at the beginning should be a brief primer on the ion species present in water with trace elements (H2O, OH-, H3O+ [since H+ is not stable]). Here one can briefly give the alternate names of hydronium, hydroxonium, and oxonium for H3O. Thereafter only one of the names should probably be used. Either the common hydronium name, or the most explicit hydroxonium. Comments? Volunteers? -- Belg4mit 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, some of the theories also actually defined the molecules involved in their own definitions of the reaction, hence why i used the term "oxonium" alongside "as defined at the time of the discovery", but i suppose there would be no harm in further explaining the differences between these and Hydronium ions.
ā„ā„ ĪĆĪ ŠSĪRĪĪ ā¬ ā„ā„
slurp me!
06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Onium ion: A positively charged hypervalent ion of the nonmetallic elements. Examples are the methonium ion CH5+, the hydrogenonium ion H3+ and the hydronium ion H3O+. Other examples are the oxonium, sulfonium, nitronium, diazonium, phosphonium, and halonium ions. Onium ions are not limited to monopositive ions; multiply-charged onium ions exist such as the gitonic (proximal) oxonium dication H4O2+ and the distonic oxonium dication H2O+-CH2-CH2-OH2+.GB
In my opinion there is absolutely no way the external link "Acid-Base Tutorial" should be there. It is not an Acid Base Tutorial as one expects. Its "major feature" is an applet that has nothing to do with the basics of Acid-base reactions.
Someone who has more involvement with this webpage then me should remove it or relabel it.
Dave3457 (
talk)
00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The naming of this article confuses me. See this redirect. Why does this use a long dash instead of just using the minus sign as a dash as is common? Tyciol ( talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there an article about all that stuff people talk about certain foods being acidic or basic depending on their nutrients or effect on the body? Like usually they say meat is acidic and that lemon juice, despite having acids, is basic due to effect on the body. I don't really understand it but an article exploring this recurring idea would be valid to link to. Tyciol ( talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the article: "he was not aware of the true composition of the hydrohalic acids (HF, HCl, HBr (hydrogen fluroide), and HI) (hydrogen iodide)". As far as I can see, the 'fluroide' mentioned is the result of a simple spelling error (it should be fluoride) and the parenthesis is misplaced, because HF is hydrogen fluoride and HBr is hydrogen bromide. The second thing is, why write out hydrogen fluoride in a parenthesis but not also the other two compounds? They all have links and it seems inconsistent. I'd prefer writing out either all compounds, including hydrogen iodide, in the same paranthesis - placed after hydrogen iodide, or none of them. Thirdly, the parenthesis placed just after HI is misplaced and should be put after the current last parenthesis of that sentence. The reason I haven't done these changes myself already is that I haven't edited much and I'm afraid to make a mistake and mess up a link. Knowledgelover121 ( talk) 08:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In highly-polar molecules, such as boron trifluoride (BF3), the most electronegative element pulls electrons towards its own orbitals, providing a more positive charge on the less-electronegative element and a difference in its electronic structure due to the axial or equatorial orbiting positions of its electrons, causing repulsive effects from lone pair ā bonding pair (LpāBp) interactions between bonded atoms in excess of those already provided by bonding pair ā bonding pair (BpāBp) interactions.
Hard to read for a chemistry newcomer. The previous sentence is also heavy. 84.227.242.247 ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I have found no defintions of Ka defined as
Ka= [HA]/([A-][H+])
but have seen multiple references including the first page of this article defining Ka as
Ka = ([A-][H+])/[HA]
This is the definition in common use.
It follows then that the expression in the article should be
[AH]Ka1 = [A-][H+] not [AH]=Ka1[A-][H+]
the subsequent 2 formula are affected.
So there is either an algebra error in this article or am I missing some greater context. DGElder ( talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The wording for the definition of an Arrhenius acid/base is confusing and contradictory. In part it states that: "an Arrhenius acid is a substance that dissociates in water to form hydrogen ions (H+);" "an Arrhenius base is a substance that dissociates in water to form hydroxide (OHā) ions;"
This matches my understanding of an Arrhenius acid/base, as this indicates it must contain a hydrogen which leaves to become "H+" to be an acid, or must contain hydroxide which leaves to become OH- to be a base.
But later on, the page states: "Overall, to qualify as an Arrhenius acid, upon the introduction to water, the chemical must either cause, directly or otherwise: an increase in the aqueous hydronium concentration, or a decrease in the aqueous hydroxide concentration. Conversely, to qualify as an Arrhenius base, upon the introduction to water, the chemical must either cause, directly or otherwise: a decrease in the aqueous hydronium concentration, or an increase in the aqueous hydroxide concentration."
This instead indicates that anything that increase the H3O+ concentration is an Arrhenius acid, and anything which increases the OH- concentration is an Arrhenius base. If you consider something like FeCl3, it doesn't contain a hydrogen atom and can't dissociate to form hydronium ions. So the first definition excludes it. However, if you put it in water, it will cause an increase in the hydronium concentration. So the latter definition indicates it should be an Arrhenius acid.
Likewise, carbonate/bicarbonate, and ammonia are all examples of bases which do not have the required hydroxide, so are excluded by the first definition of a base; but do still increase the hydroxide concentration and would be included by the second definition.
The iron chloride example also causes issues for grouping all Arrhenius acids under Bronsted-Lowry acids.
I assume the first definition is correct, and the latter one is wrong; but I don't have the original source to confirm, and find conflicting information online. Black.jeff ( talk) 01:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a terrorist groups in india 103.55.108.122 ( talk) 18:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)